Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    April 15, 2014 5:00am-5:31am PDT

5:00 am
and see our standing is the basis of the claim are 4 items one is that the structure could be renovated and replaced and the design of the design is comparable with the neighborhood and thirdly,ly there was work done after the work was filed and shouldn't have been done and the it is a historic structure. none of those claims have a boos basis to grant an appeal. first of all, i'd like to speak about the bond program that's the bond that's for 71 percent of the public. the element of that bond again, it the bond program to determine or not to be determined but
5:01 am
renovated the freestanding restrooms in our park. as part of the bond those requires that a task force be determined for the replacement and the renovation. the restroom task force was widely publicized all the meetings were noted at the library as well as on the rec and park department website. there was also an online survey conducted to receive feedback on restroom projects. and implicit the roll of the room task force was to review the projects and make pa recommendations for size that would be replaced or renovated. they also developed prioritizing
5:02 am
improvements. as a consequent the restroom at the dupont courts was slated as a priority one project for remnant the reasons it's not a who ever wheelchair restroom and it will have to deal with the clarence requires and the slip requirements for the building. also the building is or was educated to his condition by consultant in 2006. and based on the system in the building is original to the building that is systems are well past their useful life and the consultant made notes the building is having a run down feel and assigned an facility
5:03 am
index that's a rating system for measuring the physical condition of the building. and anything over 10 percent was considered poor condition it was 50 percent. so therefore the room task force considered the cost and benefits of renovation vs. replacement and found it necessary to replace the facility to make if wheelchair assessable and access the condition of the building. in designing the new restroom they worked through the city design review process to implementation of this program and for the cost effectiveness two prototypes were developed to the intended to replace the structures of similar design and
5:04 am
the others was dubbed for structures that are smaller in size depotent court feel into that category and the intent was to replace the smaller restroom with the temple design so it won't impact other uses pure consequentially the contrary design was proved for the room and received the basing last approval last month. the arts commission is aware of the neighborhood character. as you can see on the upper left of the slide is a photo of the homes right across the street from the dupont court it's a decade of construction in the
5:05 am
lower left hand corner is a career building that was built around 2000 a block way and on the rights is the each lot was development the lighter colors being the latest construction. in addition to the outreach that was done by the room at the desk the department also hosted a community meeting to provide public input into the project despite waiting at the meeting for half hour there were no community members who showed up at the meeting unfortunately. and consecutively that meeting, you know, wasn't very productive
5:06 am
but it was an opportunity to for the public to provide input on the project. in regard to the claim that the work was done after the permit appeal was filled the only work that was done was hazardous abatement work that began in may the permit was filed on june 26th to consecutively on the data containment was set up on the exterior abatement removal and they wanted to wrap up up abatement that is being appealed tonight. and in terms of the historic native of the restroom building.
5:07 am
should i wrap i have only two more slides. as a consequent of the appeal the city generated a restoration and found it eligible for the historic district. the site contains various character stand down feature not the restroom so therefore the removal of the restroom will not have an impact >> i think you should finish on rebuttal. >> this is my last slide to summarize the presentation and in conclusion the rec and park department respectfully requests that the board deny the appeal to move forward.
5:08 am
>> i have a question. >> go ahead your hazmat analysis says dollars lead. >> that's correct dollars lead on the exterior of the building. >> on the paint. >> on the exterior that's right. i didn't review the hazmat report but dollars hazardous materials on other parts that's not an issue this night >> why was the concrete which i said. >> the abatement work uses a grinding method and unfortunately, the caused the damage that was not expected but it was basic than i anticipated
5:09 am
and was not realized until after the work was completed. >> that was done for lead paint abatement? >> that's correct. >> okay. >> i have a question was the neighborhood meeting where nobody came in what kind of notification do you make. >> we had a posting on the site and mailed out information and the resident received the public notice but i got an e-mail about the project. >> can you go back to the second to the last slide the presentation. >> we need to see the slides.
5:10 am
thanks. >> can you resummarize charge that was about this slide i didn't follow. >> so the city prepared an historic resource evaluation and they concluded that the court site since is it was done at the project is eligible for a this historic district. 0 there are sufficient elements within the site that are characterized the features that are tribute able to the defining features one the features is the siding of the restroom, however,
5:11 am
the restroom building it's is not a character defining feature >> so the courts themselves create a sort of give rise to the district that rectangle area where the court is but the structure at issue does not. i don't understand what you're saying and perhaps i should defer to the preservation planner >> is that person here. >> yeah. >> great. >> i think that person is going to speak on behalf of department saw i have a question on exhibit 2 the costs would that be to make that the handicap compliant as well as bring it up to code. >> no, that's not correct the
5:12 am
repair costs repair the like material the replacement costs that's provided in the report is for the cost of replicating that structure as it currently stands not considerably the costs for building upgrades but for seated at the table autopsy do you have a cost analysis and what monies would be required to bring that you current bathroom to being handicap compliant and being renewed. >> in other words, to renovate it. >> yes. i see someone standing up are you going to - >> good evening, commissioners i am with the rec and park capital group. yes, we do have a number for
5:13 am
replacement we actually have a bed to replace that structure itself. it's over 3 hundred thousand. but >> but that structure can't be rehabbed in any way. >> restored. >> that current you structure that stands at - >> no. >> it can't you're saying? yes >> you know what the cost is i mean is it a cost issue. >> the existing infrastructure of the structure itself is delipidated. >> the plumbing. >> the plumbing and foundation itself and some of the roof and material itself. so you would have to sort of dissemble the entire building itself and start over >> was there any consideration given to replicating the existing design.
5:14 am
>> yes. and i believe - >> and why was that rejected. >> i believe marvin will talk about the design itself. >> the building design went through the arts commission review processed and there was a conscious decision by the arts commissioners to come up with a modern contrary design as a counter point to the other design development so the directions was the preference in that direction. >> so was the original design contemplated i see original design to repeal cat the design as needed. >> i'm sorry to replicate. >> the existing yeah. >> it would not be possible
5:15 am
because of the clearance requirements needed and the great differences that currently exist with the current structure to make the current structure testable it requires a lot of magnitude of modifications will determine that replacing the structure would be more cost effective. >> but your replacing the structure look radically different maybe i'll hear more from the appellant the design issue in addition to the act it's not a historic structure itself is going to be lost. you know, if the historic structure must be replaced rather than restored you can't preserve it in order to upgrade it why wouldn't you put in place in its place something
5:16 am
comparable up to code, etc. for the ada presented. why couldn't you do that it's a design issue >> yes. the big issue with the building itself is accessibility. i don't know if marvin has a slide to show the plan. there's a great difference between the existing slab and the outside tense court slab itself in order to make it assessable you have to get a ramp that has adequate contemporaneous is the door to be able to do that this plan has a curbed wall that prevents you from doing that and this analysis was done by the earth
5:17 am
team with dpw that the analysis felt that's a prudent way forward to replace the building to make it assessable >> it this building replacement a prefab so why can't and maybe someone else can help me why can't something be designed to meet the requirements. >> it can so why is the answer no. >> sure. >> i mean, you put the ramps in and level up the slab what's the problem. >> you just drop it lower that's all. >> i'm asking people who hopefully have more information. >> it's absolutely a possibility to come up with a design it's similar to what's out there right now.
5:18 am
>> why was that rejected. >> because the arts commission wanted to go a more modern roof in this design. >> okay. >> if they're finished your questions are finished commissioners. so thank you. we, hear from the department >> good evening corey from the planning staff there are a number of moveable parts to your knowledge with our planning distribution - division is here in november 2011 we had the
5:19 am
demolition project come into our department in the same month that sequa review did conclude with the issuance of a cat ignorantly condition and in may of 2013 if you jump about a year and a half there was rams on the site and the occasion permits were issued. later in june the appellant filed his appeal for the demolition permit and the following day on june 26th the exterior abatement work began unfortunately and the project as a result was referred back to the planning department where the issue of the historic native which the building was raised and there one way or another was
5:20 am
an updated review from sequa so there was a historic plan part one so the court side is a nonparticipant with the site my dollars many features the vegetation e convenient station is not part of it because of the lead abatement in june 2013 in january 2014 the phase two was issued stating that the alternated convenient station is not a significant environmental impact nor is the new construction and based on that in this year a new historical renovation was granted and march of this year the project was presented for final design and it was approved pending the board of appeals for the demolition of the existing
5:21 am
station so based on the arts and commission approval it meets the minimal conditions and the planning department didn't have a position on the demolition vs. the renovation but we'll available for questions >> go ahead. the design that was approved by the arts commission was that specifically approved for this site or a more generic design were they approving if for this 30th avenue and then back to rec and park >> the action the arts commission took in march of this year was specific inform this site and this building. >> that's why we get held up. >> and then my question is so the historic review was taken place after the work that was
5:22 am
done by the city none done prior to. >> right the original review due to the assessor native they didn't need to be done for historic preservation and that was reevaluated it needed to occur so that evaluation did occur at that time. >> okay. >> and that was one of the basis for it not being considered a character design if i heard you correctly was because the work. >> yes. but sequa look at the environment as it exists at the time of the analysis and the abatement work had been done and the character design features had been removed.
5:23 am
>> that's the best part. >> did you have questions. her >> i saw she represented the planning department and board for a number of years welcome ms. tang. >> can you tell me i don't have much knowledge of the preservation issues that's your area ms. tang. >> yes. i'm tina tang it's important to know the historic evaluation report was prepared we a qualified xhounltd architecture group they concluded the presence of a non-continuance district related
5:24 am
to the era facility that this site the dupont was part of the district and within this district we are as you sit here now the list that marvin put up is a slide united states courts and the shape of the park itself, the landscaping along the perimeter of the site, however, because of sequa and the way we evaluate is condition the baselines we were only tasked to look at what's there now a building that's been stripped of the orientation of the material as a result we didn't think that the building reached a significant integrity
5:25 am
to represent the building from that era. >> so what was stripped all the paint what else. >> the stucco and the details and even though material itself the workmanship. the design. >> okay. >> i got a question so will we see the floout of the columns and someone took a jack hammer to it is it typical of lead abatement. >> i'm not sure i can answer that. >> the concern i have really is that it was eventually historic then it became historic and but they let the work happen and now because the work happened it is
5:26 am
non-historic. >> it's in addition. >> right but the site itself is is a contributing state e site to the district we don't think it will render the site not attributable to the site itself. >> do you have another question. >> thank you. okay. thank you mr. duffey. no? >> ca care to address lead abatement mr. duffey. >> no (laughter). >> nice offer. >> you were shaking your head. >> the permit that get through dbi and for the demolition
5:27 am
obviously and it seems to be approved properly by dbi. we did get a complaint about the demolition and the district building inspector went out there already destroyed part of the structure so we get a complaint on july 1st and in july the building inspector made an inspectors and at the time there was no one working at the site. it he said it was a directors hearing scheduled for august. he didn't see anything but he may have been there earlier and by the time we get there they're gone. the complaint is still open but he didn't see any demolition that was hard to see so.
5:28 am
okay >> i've got one question mr. duffey if this would have been a typical homeowner and the work this work has been done who what would be the departments 0 position this far. >> the work as in lead abatement work or demolition work. >> demolition. >> when you define demolition without a permit i'm not sure where your question is going. what would be anything >> anything about the rebuttal. >> the entity the permit holder or project sponsor that did this work that's responsible for it is the rec and park; right? >> yes. >> so if it was a regular
5:29 am
person and not a government entity to what stent that type of work that basic stripped something that gives rise to historic - what's that. >> potential. >> potential would that result in a fine or will penalty i know it's a hypothetical question. >> with it. >> with or without. >> that's a good question it depended on on the scope of the work we go by that a lot of time if it shows demolition we assume that's gone through review so if it's showed to be demolished it's demolished but it it turnout later on that this come
5:30 am
up after the fact we'll issue a stop order stop and go back in again. this is the problem in the field with building department vs. preservation. we are not preservation inspectors building intersections but on the applicant i saw some of the preservation documents on buildings and usually gives a list of things to be done and thoip but that's all spelled out so i think 0 that's obviously gone through and realized after the fact >> but commissioners we might want to ask a slightly different